"You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation.”
-Marian Wright Edelman

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

THE INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION DEBATE IS OVER

Despite what some may believe, the intercountry adoption
debate is effectively over.

For
years, the intercountry adoption (ICA) debate has involved a continuum
involving three positions. One side,
whom I will label the ICA cheerleaders, sees ICA as the best intervention for
millions of children caught in destructive, dead-end situations with no
adequate domestic solutions. Under the
banner of “every child has a right to a family,” this position prioritizes ICA
as often the only means of providing children living outside of parental care
with a permanent family. The hope was
there would routinely be hundreds of thousands of intercountry adoptions
annually, such that there would no longer be “orphans” wasting away in
orphanages or on the streets.

On the other side are the ICA
opponents, who oppose any systemic practice of ICA as neo-colonialist
exploitation which takes children from poor, usually non-white, vulnerable
families and communities in developing and transition economies, and sends them
to generally white, privileged families in rich nations.This perspectives emphasizes the child’s
loss of family, community, culture, language, and nation. Some
ICA opponents interpret the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as
opposed to any systemic ICA practice, and as incompatible with the Hague
Adoption Convention.

In the center, between the ICA
cheerleaders and the ICA opponents, are a set of international standards
harmonizing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Hague Adoption
Convention, and Alternative Care Guidelines.Under these harmonized and developing international standards, ICA may
be an appropriate practice in the absence of available and appropriate domestic
solutions for children bereft of parental care. The Hague Conference on Private International
Law (HCCH), International Social Services (ISS), UNICEF, States (nations), and
many NGOs have developed these international standards in order to reform
international adoption into a safe system free of systemic illicit practices
and compatible with human and children’s rights.Within
these standards, poverty is not an adequate reason for ICA, and priority should
be given to domestic solutions such as family preservation and re-unification
and appropriate domestic solutions.Within the context of these international standards there is still
disagreement about which domestic solutions are adequate, and how to balance
building up domestic child welfare capacities with ICA practice and capacity.

The
debate over these contrasting views of ICA is over because of changing contexts
and events, rather than due to any success in one side persuading the others. While many on all sides remain just as
committed to the rightness of their viewpoints, these disagreements now have
little relevance for the present or immediate future of ICA. The
most striking and important set of events is the sharp decline in ICA globally
over the last decade. ICA globally has declined by almost two-thirds
over the last decade, from a high of about 45,000 annually to about 16,000
annually. ICA to the United States has
declined by more than 70% over a similar period, from a high of about 23,000 in
2004, to about 6,400 in FY 2014. [For
global ICA statistics, the best source is Professor Peter Selman; U.S.
statistics are available online from the U.S. Department of State.]

Given such small and declining
numbers, it has become increasingly difficult to see ICA as either a global
solution or global threat for the millions of vulnerable children and families
around the world.Instead, ICA is
increasingly an issue at the margins for those concerned with children
globally, as a solution for a small number of primarily “special needs”
children, defined generally as older children, children with various
kinds of serious disabilities, and sibling groups.Even as to those categories of special needs
children lacking parental care, ICA is practiced only as to a very small
percentage, and in significant number only in a small number of nations.

Another
key set of events has been the recurrent cycle of abuse, in which a nation will
rise quickly in numbers as a source of children for ICA, only to be temporarily
or permanently closed due to reports and scandals of illicit practices. Some proponents of ICA complain that the
reports of illicit practices are sensationalized and exaggerated, while others
(such as myself) argue that the illicit practices have often been
systemic. Either way, the damage to ICA’s
reputation due to such reports has been substantial, with impacted States
closing temporarily or permanently, and other States reluctant to open to ICA
due to concerns over illicit practices.

The
debate is over because, at least for now, very few on any side of the debate
actually believe that the numbers will rise substantially anytime in the
foreseeable future. Instead, the
infrastructure of agencies and organizations built around large-scale ICA are
being dismantled. In the United States,
perhaps as many as four hundred international adoption agencies have
closed. One of the most symbolic signs
of this decline in ICA numbers and agencies has been the announcement that the
Joint Council on International Children’s Services (JCICS) was to close as of
June 30th, 2015. At its most
influential, JCICS could unapologetically be the primary voice and trade
organizations for ICA agencies in the United States. Over the last years of decline, JCICS tried
to re-invent itself as representing international children’s services
generally, rather than ICA in particular.
Its closure represents the difficulties of entities built around ICA
becoming credible spokespersons and experts for children’s services beyond ICA.

To be
clear, although I have been repeatedly characterized by some as an opponent of
ICA, I represent the middle position of international standards. The attempts by some ICA cheerleaders to
marginalize me, and their apparent frustration over the frequent use and
acceptance of my own work internationally, is a small sign of the failed
strategy and vision of the U.S. based ICA cheerleaders. In essence, many ICA cheerleaders lumped
proponents of international standards together with ICA opponents. In essence, ICA cheerleaders tried to
promote ICA while treating many of the most important actors and stakeholders
involved in ICA as their enemies.

Indeed, the ICA movement in the
last decade increasingly saw devils, obstacles, and opponents everywhere:in UNICEF, HCCH, the Hague Adoption
Convention, human rights organizations, the U.S. State Department, most States
of Origin, adoptee and first parent organizations, and academics such as
myself.Such a strategy, while it
created some short term gains, was destined to fail, for it sought to
marginalize and sidestep groups and persons essential to any successful ICA system.ICA as a lawful system requires
international actors such as States, international organizations and NGOs, for
you literally cannot do lawful ICA without both States of Origin and Receiving
States acting, and organizations like UNICEF, HCCH, ISS, and significant NGOs
and human rights actors are a part of the fabric, context, and connections of
international society.ICA cannot
function effectively by marginalizing the adoptees who are its purported
beneficiaries.ICA could never be
successful by trying to slay messengers (such as myself) who have served in
effect as whistle-blowers about illicit practices, for without proper
intelligence about what was going wrong on the ground the system becomes
incapable of effective self-correction.

Many ICA cheerleaders treated
virtually anyone who clouded the simplistic savior narrative of ICA as an
opponent and subject to marginalization, shaming, and silencing, with the
result that proponents lost touch with reality and with the capacity to create
a sustainable ICA system.Instead, the
ICA movement within the USA created an echo-chamber of powerful actors,
including some within the government and legislature, the Congressional
Coalition on Adoption Institute, JCICS, ICA agencies, the National Council for
Adoption (NCFA), the Center for Adoption Policy, the Christian Alliance for
Orphans (CAFO), and Together for Adoption.These individuals and groups
constantly consulted with one another but engaged with most others in the
adoption communities as though they were outsiders or enemies.Perhaps
the underlying glue that bound these groups together, at least in the United
States, was an implicit alliance between adoption agencies, prospective
adoptive parents (PAPs), and adoptive parents (APs).While of course some agencies and some adoptive
parents (such as myself) dissented, the ICA cheerleading movement was largely
built upon the synergy and worldview generated by agencies, PAPS, and APs.Innumerable e-mail and social media groups
dominated by agencies, PAPs, and APs both promulgated the ICA cheerleading
orthodoxy, and silenced and shamed dissenters.

Certainly some within these groups
in the last years attempted to open up broader dialogues---I credit
particularly Tom DiFilipo of JCICS and Jedd Medefind of CAFO, among others. Nonetheless, the ICA cheerleaders as a movement
never sufficiently differentiated between the broad middle that saw ICA through
the lens of the developing international standards, and those who were
ideologically opposed to any systemic practice of ICA.Thus, the ICA cheerleaders never succeeded
in treating the critical middle as truly equal partners, nor the international system as an indispensable means for
reforming and sustaining ICA practice.More deeply, the ICA movement never was
willing to look at the evidence sufficiently to question its presupposition
that illicit practices were a mostly insignificant distraction from the noble
purpose of rescuing children.The close
connections between ICA cheerleaders and agencies made their movement in effect
a lobbying arm of the agencies.In that
context, the aversion of most agencies to strict rules on finances and
accountability became in effect the position of ICA cheerleaders, with
disastrous consequences for ICA practice in many vulnerable nations such as
Guatemala, Nepal, Ethiopia, DRC (Congo), and Uganda.

Perhaps the U.S. adoption movement
believed it had the power to enforce its will on the world, in defiance of the
basic structures of international relations and law.If so, that hubris has been proven false.One of the final nails in that coffin was
the failure of the proposed Children in Families First (CHIFF) legislation,
along with the failure of Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, its most
important advocate, to win re-election in 2014.CHIFF seemed to be an attempt to both inject
new federal money into ICA agencies in the U.S. in order to sustain their
survival, and to force other nations to classify millions of children as
eligible for ICA in defiance of international standards for adoptability.The desperate hope that the U.S. could force
open international access to children around the world through mere domestic
legislation, in defiance of developments in international law and society, shows
the mindset of the movement as bent to practice ICA despite, rather than
through, the structures of international law and governance.

Indeed, the international context
for ICA makes it increasingly unlikely that the U.S. would or could attempt to
impose its will in the manner envisioned by CHIFF. For me, this was made even clearer by the
recent Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Adoption
Convention, held in June of this year.The event is facilitated approximately every
five years by HCCH, and is a diplomatic meeting of governments, with some
representation of international organizations.There were approximately seventy nations represented in 2015. I have
been honored in the last two Special Commissions (2015 and 2010) to participate
as an Independent Expert/Observer, and each time was honored with the
opportunity to make a presentation on illicit practices.Having
observed these last two Special Commissions, I was impressed by the growing
self-confidence of the States of Origin.Increasingly, they seem to be cooperating among themselves, particularly
in regional blocks, in helping one another to implement improved practices
according to both international standards and their own national and regional
cultures and perspectives.Increasingly,
States of Origin seem willing to assert themselves and their own perspectives
and concerns, rather than deferring to Receiving States or others.While the United States is certainly a very
important actor which advocates its positions eloquently and effectively, the
United States is certainly not in a position to dictate, even if that were its
policy (which, I presume, it is not).The United States instead effectively works cooperatively with other
governments and with the Permanent Bureau of HCCH. HCCH itself carefully
facilitates discussions among the Receiving States and States of Origin,
seeking consensus.

The dream of CHIFF, that a single
act of legislation by the United States Congress could force the United States
government to somehow dictate definitions and practices regarding which
children are deemed eligible for ICA globally, contrary to current
international standards, makes no sense within this global context of
international law and cooperation.Of
course such an attempt would validate the views of those who see in ICA a
neo-colonialist project, and hence radically increase opposition to ICA
globally.The fact that so many ICA
cheerleaders, as recently as last year, were committed to CHIFF, shows the
failure of the movement to comprehend the global situation of ICA, and the
proper place of U.S.-based adoption proponents within that situation.

So the ICA debate is over, not
because one side has persuaded another, but because of how events in the world
have overtaken the debate.The ICA
cheerleaders have failed by their own criteria---the numbers of international
adoptions---and have no credible plan to reverse that failure.Instead, many of the organizations and people
who were central to the movement have dissolved, left, or are
re-structuring/repurposing.Of course
the failure of one side does not mean that the other sides have won.In this instance, it means rather that the
situation has been profoundly altered, and the terms of future debate and
development altered.

The question is, what comes
next?The end of the debate is not the end for the
millions of people personally impacted by ICA, for adoption changes lives
forever.The end of the debate is not
the end for those who have devoted years, or decades, to ICA, regardless of
their perspective on it.The end of the
debate is not the end for ICA practice, which continues, even if at much
reduced numbers. The end of the debate
is not the end for the countries still in the grip of recent and current crises
over illicit practices, such as Ethiopia, DRC, and Uganda. The end of the debate is not the end for
efforts to assist the millions of vulnerable children and families around the
world.Hence, what comes next will be
the subject of a future post.

4 comments:

I still can't help but to think how much money the adoption profiteers and perpetrators, er, I mean the ICA Cheerleaders, are making off the backs of vulnerable families as they whip through those countries and target children while abandoning the families. And then they bully, demean and even label anyone who argues as "anti" this or that. Not ever inviting the torn families into their toxic buffet --not that we would ever want to attend. puke. I'd rather be poor than to join them.-- obviously God is on the side of the severed indigenous families.

They're just back in their boardrooms ruminating over the next plan of action to convince these countries that GOD is on their side, while labelling the rest of us as "anti-this or that" (as if we're the sinful ones) They will do anything and everything to keep at least the bloodgates open just a crack so that they can continue to have the monopoly on children as soon as the rest of the world allows them. Foxes guarding the henhouses. Each time they go into a country, their smiles are bigger, and their eyes more wanting.

Thanks David. I concur, more or less. As someone who felt marginalized at times, I just chuckled to myself about the many conferences I attended and dealt with the sneers of the proponents/cheer leaders. I look forward to your next post as we all contemplate what is next--Karen Smith Rotabi

Proud to be one of whistleblowers, along with Karen, Roelie Post, Jane Jeong Trenka, Daniel Ibn Zahn, Peter Dodds, the Vance Twins, Sunny Jo, and so many others who spoke truth to power. I will continue to speak out against adoption injustices until ICA and all exploitative, coercive adoption practices are a part of history along with slavery and genocides.

Thank you for all you have done, David! My fear is that as long as there is demand (and that has not diminished at all) people will find ways to exploit mothers for their babies and lie to and marginalize fathers right here in the USA as well as exploit surrogates and find more and more creative ways to create children with anonymous genetic history.

Translate

Search This Blog

Contributing Fleas

Why These Fleas Bite

Desiree: In 1998 my husband David and I adopted a sibling group of two older girls from India.

Within six weeks of their arrival, our new daughters, who were severely emotionally traumatized, told us they had been stolen from their birthfamily.

For six long and difficult years, our agency, though asked to do so repeatedly, failed to investigate our daughters allegations.

Finally, on our own with the help of an Indian activist for the poor, we found our daughters' birthfamily and confirmed their disturbing story.

Despite all this there has yet to be so much as an apology from our agency, and certainly no justice. Not for our daughters. Not for our daughters' first parents. Not for ourselves.

It seems that NO ONE CARES about this crime.

Our US agency--which has not disputed the facts of the case--says that it bears no legal responsibility even if, like we say, they helped place stolen children in our home.

Our pleas to both the Indian and US governments have fallen on what appears to be deaf ears, and therefore, we assume, uncaring ears. The state office which licenses our agency has a phone machine for complaints; apparently they do not return phone calls--at least ours was never returned.

Meanwhile, the Indian orphanage director has been jailed three times on child trafficking related charges. He is currently trying to be relicensed yet again.

We have been left to ask the questions:

1) How could this have happened? Was our case simply a rare happenstance or could there be specific flaws--specific or systemic--in the system that have allowed/caused it to happen?

2) Why is it that no one cares about this kind of crime?

This blog represents some of the answers we've found to these questions. It also is shares the ongoing answers as we continue to learn.

Flea bites are simply individual incidents of exposing the reality of international adoption practices--one example, one practice, one analysis, one real-life experience, one proposed remedy, and one "big picture" at a time.

If our insignificant flea bites can save other families the extreme pain that our daughters, our daughters' first family, and our own family have endured, these flea bites will not be in vain.

Usha: When I adopted from India not that many years ago, I was ignorant about the adoption landscape.

I believed the adoption myth that adoption agencies are basically trustworthy and that with all the hoops adopters must jump through, there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure that adoptions are ethical.

After adopting, I began participating in the adoption community.

My eyes were opened by the racist attitudes and beliefs I observed in fellow adopters from India. I couldn't believe the dim view I saw many take of my children's country of birth, my own country of origin.

Where were the checks to ensure that children were adopted into non-racist families? Later, my eyes opened wider when I learned about scndal after scandal with the recurrent themes of: getting children "out," agencies willing to look the other way, laws that are good on paper, but that are not enforced and individuals advocating for reform simplistically painted as evil and "anti-adoption."

First, I thought adoption corruption was primarily specific to India. It didn't take long, however, to become aware of how pervasive adoption corruption is.

With that knowledge came a sense of obligation that as a participant in the system: no matter how unwitting, I owe it to my children to advocate for reform

“Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured”

--Thucydides, Ancient Greek historians and author, 460-404bc

“The more I learn, the more race, culture, and class stand out as the key issues behind ethical problems in adoption, domestically and internationally—the same issues are at play in both"”

--Tesi Kohlenberg, Adoptive Parent

Adult Adoptee Voices

"We are not commodities. We are children that were torn away from our countries, our parents, and our culture. We are not the newest fad. We are women and men who forever have a hole that cannot be filled. We have voices, and we use them to express our outrage, our bitterness, our anger, and also our joy,our love,and our lives. To learn from us is to listen to what is, sometimes,underneath."

"Sending" Country Parent and Community Voices

"We are not animals to be bought and sold,"

--Ana Escobar, a Guatemalan mother whose baby was stolen from her and who suspected her child was funneled into the International Adoption system. Ana diligently searched for her child through pending adoption paperwork until she found her--with a false identity and fake DNA tests--waiting to be processed for adoption by a US family. After a new DNA test confirmed Ana was her child's mother, the two were reunited.